You Are Not Your Brain


anthony

Recommended Posts

Belief in an afterlife, an immortal soul, angels, hell, heaven, Satan, miracles -- these are held by a majority. So you are in a large company, Greg -- though you must surely understand most OLers do not share these beliefs whatsoever ...

I understand, William... and would never think of regarding the consensus of others as confirmation. I reflect on my own direct first person life experience for that. I do have to admit I did laugh when I clicked on one of the first links and saw "secularweb". There is no more resolute militant collective than those who subscribe to the secular political religion of leftism... which is the most prominent dynamic religion in the world for the last century.

People who believe they have no soul tend to behave as if they don't.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 243
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Speaking only for me, I can't accept a theology that demands, as part of its belief system, that I anticipate a 'better world' for my non-worldly 'spirit' when I die. I assessed what was told to me when I was young -- by, universally, other human peers just like me, not by 'God' -- as blatent political tales, sort of along the lines of 'buy this, join our club, and we promise everlasting life in a better world or your money back. 2000 yrs, and not a single complaint yet." For all I know (because all I know on this subject is what other peers have try to sell me, and whatever hints my Creator has given to me directly otherwise), when I pass, I will get 10 seconds to say something to my Creator. Or not, and I just pass, and return the merely borrowed heavy elements, former star dust, to the next lucky riders who meander past, leaving only my memories, my children, and my works as reflections of me. Perhaps I'll still make my children laugh, as memories, just like my father in law still does after passing 30 yrs ago, or my father, who is now gone for five, who still inspires me. But I've decided, if that happens, and if I get such a chance, to say "Thanks for the ride; it was incredible." And live my one and only life like I want to prepare to be able to say that, without expecting a 'better life' to be waiting on the other side of that Creator."

Another alternative is to show up with my club attendance sheets and offering receipts, and a video of all the times I let folks into traffic and so on, and make my claim on the 'better' life that is due me. "The nice men in funny hats said you'd have a 'better life' for me if I filled all these out correctly and filled their offering plates and so on. I'm looking behind you, and I don't see that 'better' life promised me after whatever the fuck that sad worldly thing I just lived through was, so where's my payday?"

Would I be the ingrate for simply saying 'Thank You' and not expecting a 'better' life as my due? Would the after-life seeking mercenaries do much better, expressing such gratitude? Maybe. I know the wordly hucksters selling that jive believe so. But my Creator works in mysterious ways; whoever He is, He created me, here, with this mind, and these conclusions, and He has pretty much been telling me to ignore the hucksters. Or, maybe it is Satan telling me to grateful for what the other guys tell us is God's Creation. I don't know, maybe Satan is confused, too.

Hey, according to the legend, God was working with nothing; who am I to tell Him this world, as it is, wasn't up to my standards, and now I and/or just my soul deserve a 'better' world, so pay up? Better still, this is supposedly 'pre-paid' by having crucified His one and only son. Trust the hucksters, this somehow makes sense, was a reasonable thing to do. As a result, I could literally run around raping everything not nailed to the floor and as long as the very last minute, I have a deep and sincere and truthful Come To Jesus moment, why, I, too, will be one of the Forty Thousand from All of History to make it to the Better World. As a worldy marketing tool, how can you beat that deal with a stick? Before you know it, Gold encrusted mansions in Italy abound, and a cool gig for the guys with the funny hats.

Judeo-Christian beliefs, with a common root. A 6000 yr history of conservative values, and then, a 2000 year old splintering of those ideas. One branch -- the 6000 yr old model, still has a very flat model: You-God, with Rabbi as teacher. The other branch has split into more layers of corporate structure and men in funny hats than your average chess board. Excuse me for noticing, but W.T.F.?

Here's a mind blower; are we sure that the entrance to the Better World is not arriving there with a sincere sense of gratitude for the gift already given to us, and no sense of entitlement to anything else beyond?

An alternate theology; now let's see; which one would be more leveragable down here in the mud as a political tactic? I'll see your 'no payday' theology, and raise it an endless afterlife in a Better World. And why not? It costs nothing to make that raise. Infinite return for no additional cost...and not a single complaint in 2000 yrs.

Merry Christmas!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yeah!!!!! Here is why I do not post my photo on this forum.

http://www.123rf.com/photo_19583353_cute-brain-cartoon-character-pointing.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking only for me, I can't accept a theology that demands... (laundry list).

I don't believe in your made up god any more than you do, Fred. So you're only mocking a figment of your own imagination. However, the fact that you did does serve the useful purpose of providing you with something that satisfies your need to deride. :wink:

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sociability is hard-wired (so to speak) into most humans.

For sure. But what drives modern politics is not a tiny handful of hermits vs. The Tribe, or even collectivism vs. individualism.

What drives modern politics is roaming tribes who either embrace or eschew forced association in the formation of socius.

Society, from the Latin 'socius': ally, companion. As in, known associate. Mankind and nations form societies, plural, not "S"ociety, singular. "S"ociety is the very definition of Totalitarianism, and requires forced association to implement. Pointing that out is not being 'anti-social.' Pointing that out is being anit-Totalitarian and pro-freedom/liberty. Embracing free association and eschewing forced association.

Individuals form societies all the time; some free and some by force.

That isn't a conservative/liberal divide; that is what separates libertarians from totalitarians, rapists from lovers, and slave owners from employers. .

Socialism is not national socialism; the difference between them is exactly the element of forced association.

So called conservatives embrace forced association when it is convenient; they are a confused mess when it comes to the principles of liberty. Ditto liberals.

regards,

Fred

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg:

People who believe they have no soul tend to behave as if they don't.

So, directed at the non-spookers among us, that pithy personal leg-lifting was not intended to deride, but to enlighten? Perhaps in prescient anticipation of my need to deride?

regards,

Fred

,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would a brain have no soul?

Our Greg equivocates on the meaning of 'soul.' It can mean 'animating spirit' and it can mean 'inanimate spirit,' and it can mean a few other things, like a basic cookie dough with additions: "immortal," "incarnated," "separable from 'mind,'" "imbued with the Holy Spirit."

If he meant 'immortal soul,' then his Objectivish/Rational peers here without faith in a discarnate spirit world will see his saying as sloppy spiritualism/opinion. I certainly behave as if I had an animating spirit. It can seem at times that this spirit lives on outside me (in my leavings of written language, songs, speeches). I can happily conflate my mind with my 'soul,' and be happy enough when my mind sleeps. I can be perfectly happy believing my soul/mind expires at death.

But I think Frediano has extracted the meaningfulness from Greg's apothegm.

Greg:

People who believe they have no soul tend to behave as if they don't.

So, directed at the non-spookers among us, that pithy personal leg-lifting was not intended to deride, but to enlighten? Perhaps in prescient anticipation of my need to deride?

Despite the passive-aggressive pissing on atheists and agnostics (always welcome at Christmastime!), I think Greg is making a valid point. He is not like the other people here. He believes in God, a divine Jesus, hellfire, heaven, whereas the bulk of us do not.

Having established this astonishing-to-him fact, now what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This can be reduced or simplified to faith and non-faith.

It was too hard to make sense of Greg's you are or you are not your brain--make a choice or you have made a choice--thesis. I like to root around amidst the binaries, which kinda frequently leaves me on the outside looking into Rand's world--a world from which I exiled myself decades ago.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg:

People who believe they have no soul tend to behave as if they don't.

So, directed at the non-spookers among us, that pithy personal leg-lifting was not intended to deride, but to enlighten? Perhaps in prescient anticipation of my need to deride?

regards,

Fred

,

I actually thought it was funny! :laugh:

But there's always a grain of truth in humor. Dope and perversion are regarded as Holy Sacraments by libertine secularists who believe they have no souls.

They call it "freedom from religion"... and I'm all for people doing whatever they want, because I don't get the consequences of their actions. I call that "freedom from secularism". :wink:

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People who believe they have no soul tend to behave as if they don't.

Greg

I will drink to that, Greg. A wise thought, however one's 'soul' is perceived to be.

I was actually just fooling around with the play on words, Tony. :smile: I leave the definition of soul open to whatever is still there after our bodies are either wormfood or ashes.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite the passive-aggressive pissing on atheists and agnostics (always welcome at Christmastime!), I think Greg is making a valid point. He is not like the other people here. He believes in God, a divine Jesus, hellfire, heaven, whereas the bulk of us do not.

Your characature is incorrect on a couple of key points, William. I don't "believe" in God. I know God exists. I don't "believe" in hellfire. I know that people create their own self-inflicted hell right here and now. And it's nothing more "mystical" than getting the consequences they rightfully deserve for their own actions.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People who believe they have no soul tend to behave as if they don't.

Greg

I will drink to that, Greg. A wise thought, however one's 'soul' is perceived to be.

I was actually just fooling around with the play on words, Tony. :smile: I leave the definition of soul open to whatever is still there after our bodies are either wormfood or ashes.

Greg

Greg: We are not going to ever agree on its heritage (and that's fine) but we do have agreement on the existential outcome of possessing "soul".

To start from this last premise, you acknowledge the importance, responsibility and authority of selfhood, all before and apart from bringing in your Creator, your ultimate Authority, who to you, granted the soul and will be the eventual repository of it. And - in practice - it is inevitable that you act on that self-knowledge. So like many thoughtful Christians, you arrive at a staunch individualism, if not the undiluted one Objectivism depicts. Reality (call it God, if you wish) calls the shots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This can be reduced or simplified to faith and non-faith.

Non-faith is just faith that something is not-so. :wink:

Greg

No. It means that's where you--not I--end up: a world of faith. That's because that's where you start out. It's foundational. You will thus say that I have "faith" in reason, but that's a blatant contradiction. Reason comes straight out of an axiomatic (Objectivist) principle. There is no room within such an axiom for anything but reason. You can't put faith in there without pushing reason out. That would be a self refuting fallacy. You cannot apprehend reality with faith. All you can do is rationalize your own beliefs. If you use reason layered on top of your faith--there's no other place to put this kind of reason--and you don't end up with rationalization, then you are ignoring your "faith," not reason. This means you can't win an argument qua argument for faith gives you no facts to argue with. It also means I can't win for arguing with you for it takes two to tango. So if you don't break it off--and you have--I will--which I have.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somebody has to come up with a replacement for "Atheist".

'Without God' is meaningless, in itself, and probably a stolen concept. It lends significance to that which has been renounced.

What is the godless state of mind 'With'? What does it stand 'For'?

Looked at sideways and objectively, WG is (or should be) the automatic default position.

Your choice: to stay as you are, or to join any religion and believe in God.

(Or to be "Agnostic". 'Without knowledge', waiting for Divine intervention or upon final scientific disproof)...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somebody has to come up with a replacement for "Atheist".

'Without God' is meaningless, in itself, and probably a stolen concept. It lends significance to that which has been renounced.

What is the godless state of mind 'With'? What does it stand 'For'?

Looked at sideways and objectively, WG is (or should be) the automatic default position.

Your choice: to stay as you are, or to join any religion and believe in God.

(Or to be "Agnostic". 'Without knowledge', waiting for Divine intervention or upon final scientific disproof)...

Try pantheist.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People who believe they have no sclermak tend to behave as if they don't.

Now, that is funny, without even the slightest insinuation denigrating those who believe they have no sclermak.

A belief in having a sclermak, would demand an act of faith, because after all, there is no such thing as a sclermak-meter, and we can't be presented with a '5.3' on the meter as evidence of actually having a sclermak.

A sclermak, after all, is a totally made up, unreal thing with no evidence that it exists that requires an act of faith, whereas a soul is a non-made up real thing that requires an act of faith to believe it exists.

It reminds me of the mirth surrounding what are allowable and unallowable gods in public schools. The gods of football, regularly prayed to in huddles before the inevitable hail Marys, as well as the gods of theater, with its sacred space and sermons delivered to folks from the altar while they sit in pews, are totally embraced in public schools, because on our God-O-Meters, they are clearly not 'real' supernatural gods, whereas the paraphernalia associated with the God of Abraham is not allowed in public schools because that is a 'real' supernatural God. How do we know that one set of gods are not real supernatural gods, and the other is a real supernatural god? I have no idea; clearly, I must have faith, its a mystery, and so on.

Which reminds me of the bigger conundrum; the definition of 'religion' in our state. We have a first Amendment that prohibits not only a state 'establishment of religion' (even more restrictive than a prohibition to the establishment of 'a' religion), but also prohibits any infringement of the free exercise thereof-- without any qualification of where or when that undefinable religion can be freely practiced. And so, to me, if nobody else, a conundrum: how is it possible, for atheists or anyone else, to petition our government for 'protection' from the practice of freely practicable and undefinable by the state religion, without the state having the means to define what is and what is not 'religion?'

Surely, with all the definitions in the US Code, there is a line somewhere that starts off 'the term religion shall mean:' Nope-- not with a ten foot pole. Not even in IRS statute, whose rules for non-profits nowhere define 'religion' because the state is explicitly prohibited from passing any law respecting an establishment of religion. That does not mean, prohibited from passing a law saying that the church building on 3rd and main is a mighty fine example of architecture. It means: an establishment of religion, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof. Anywhere, without exclusion.

So if I or anyone petition the government for 'protection' from gods I don't believe are real -- such as, the gods of theater, or the gods of football -- does the state have any means to deny my petition on the basis that those are not 'real' supernatural gods, or 'real' religions? How so? Does the state maintain a list of 'real' and 'unreal' gods or religions? Isn't that exactly the act that our state is prohibited from ever doing?

And how so? Would a God-O-Meter of some kind be involved, to distinguish 'real' supernatural gods from 'unreal' supernatural gods-- such as, the God of Tuna?

Isn't the states selective 'protection' -- ie, for the curious goal of prohibiting the free exercise thereof -- an explicit elevation of some religions as 'real' religions? I'm with Thomas Jefferson on this one; let them all arrive on The Lawn at his public university, each to make their case, so that the sunshine and open air can ameliorate their asperities, and so on. The freedom of religion amendment in the VA bill of rights made the original intent of the times much more explicit as to what 'religious freedom' meant in a recognized majority Christian nation; not only complete freedom of religion, but with it, an obligation for a majority Christian nation to practice 'Christian forebearance' -- a tolerance of other's belief or non-belief. The tradition of 'religious tolerance' is the very essence of American freedom. The FF were brilliant in this realization, even as members of their faith.

FLash ahead a few hundred years of imperfect abuse of this idea. Is there today any precedent that would support an appeal of 'protection' from Gods that I don't believe are real, or from religions that I am not a member of? Especially for the curious goal of prohibiting the free exercise thereof anywhere in America, in any context?

When i claim that theater is a religion, with its self proclaimed 'sacred space' and its gods of the theater, is the state in any position to check its list of permitted and not permitted religions and tell me what is and what is not 'religion' in this nation, and so, deny my petition for 'protection' from gods and religions that I neither believe in nor am a member of?

Then, what of Scott Nearing and his "Social Religion." There is a treatise that defines a religion explicitely as 'religion.' It is, in essence, the Progressive playbook. "Progress" was Christian Scott Nearing's precise argument in the early 1900s, when he published 'Social Religion' twice; the first time as a crusading Christian who was frustrated at the slow pace of 'progress' of Jesus' mission here on earth, and who argued for a more politically aggressive use of our state to carry out Jesus' mission here on earth; feed the hungry, fight poverty, and so on. All great and wonderful reasons to court a theocracy.

Can some 'religion' be blatantly injected into our machinery of state, as long as we keep out the iconry-- the Ten Commandment tablets, the crosses, the sleeping Jesus in the mangers and so on-- all the really dangerous things? Whereas, the forced association, replace compassion and benevolence with politicos pointing state guns freedom eating elements of religion run amok are acceptable over-runs of religion in our machinery of state, because after all, the Scott Nearings were frustrated with their faith and were doing only what God was screaming into their ears at night when the voices came, and so on?

In response to the very first petition for 'protection' from religions and Gods that someone didn't even believe in, our state's only legal response should have been "Religion? God? What is that? You live in a nation of complete religious freedom, with an obligation as a citizen for tolerance of the religion of others."

Remember being 'forced' to pray as a child in school? Neither do I. What I was mumbling every morning, and who I was mumbling it to, is a complete mystery and hardly consequential.

Remember being forced to take social studies and study sociology and take your indoctrination about "S"ociety, and so on? Now, that I distinctly remember; it continued long past public schooling, well into the Seminaries of Social Scientology we call 'the Ivies.'

But we have our hair on fire only about the plastic crosses and stone tablets and christmas trees and baby Jesuses, in the name of defending freedom. Sure we do.

regards,

Fred

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now